Are cause and effect the same as in our Universe in a non-relativistic, Newtonian Universe in which the speed of light is infinite?Can an object accelerate to infinite speed in a finite time-interval in non-relativistic Newtonian mechanics?In a universe where the speed of light is infinite, are relativistic models and Newtonian models equivalent?Has the speed of light changed over time?Are the ideas of the speed of light and the absolute top speed inside the universe equivalent?Expanding universe and the speed of lightWhy does larger permittivity of a medium cause light to propagate slower?Our speed and direction by comparing the speed of light?Speed of light and infinite energyWhy is force often a function of position and not the other way around?How strong would a magnetic field have to be to rotate a permanent ring magnet that is circumferentially-magnetized?
How do I tell my boss that I'm quitting soon, especially given that a colleague just left this week
What is going on with gets(stdin) on the site coderbyte?
Biological Blimps: Propulsion
Does an advisor owe his/her student anything? Will an advisor keep a PhD student only out of pity?
How could a planet have erratic days?
How would you translate "more" for use as an interface button?
Why Shazam when there is already Superman?
Shouldn’t conservatives embrace universal basic income?
Review your own paper in Mathematics
When were female captains banned from Starfleet?
Did the UK lift the requirement for registering SIM cards?
Do we have to expect a queue for the shuttle from Watford Junction to Harry Potter Studio?
Can I say "fingers" when referring to toes?
Giving feedback to someone without sounding prejudiced
C++ check if statement can be evaluated constexpr
Why does this expression simplify as such?
Pre-mixing cryogenic fuels and using only one fuel tank
The IT department bottlenecks progress, how should I handle this?
What are some good ways to treat frozen vegetables such that they behave like fresh vegetables when stir frying them?
Will number of steps recorded on FitBit/any fitness tracker add up distance in PokemonGo?
How to convince somebody that he is fit for something else, but not this job?
Has the laser at Magurele, Romania reached a tenth of the Sun's power?
A variation to the phrase "hanging over my shoulders"
What is Cash Advance APR?
Are cause and effect the same as in our Universe in a non-relativistic, Newtonian Universe in which the speed of light is infinite?
Can an object accelerate to infinite speed in a finite time-interval in non-relativistic Newtonian mechanics?In a universe where the speed of light is infinite, are relativistic models and Newtonian models equivalent?Has the speed of light changed over time?Are the ideas of the speed of light and the absolute top speed inside the universe equivalent?Expanding universe and the speed of lightWhy does larger permittivity of a medium cause light to propagate slower?Our speed and direction by comparing the speed of light?Speed of light and infinite energyWhy is force often a function of position and not the other way around?How strong would a magnetic field have to be to rotate a permanent ring magnet that is circumferentially-magnetized?
$begingroup$
Suppose the Universe was non-relativistic so time and space would be independent of each other. In other words, both of them separately would be absolute and independent of an observer's motion (unlike the absolute spacetime in relativity). And suppose the speed of light would be infinite. Would the kind of cause and effect that we experience in our real Universe still exist in this imaginary Universe? In our Universe, it takes time for a cause to propagate and have an effect at a distance from the cause. I assume the cause is transferred by e.m. radiation and ignore the other three forces. In case of the weak force the cause will propagate with a finite speed, but because I believe the weak force is not a fundamental force, but a residue force of a more fundamental force, namely the hyper color force transmitted by hyper gluons as is explained by Haim Harari in his Rishon Model (just as the strong force was once thought to be transmitted by massive pions which turned out to be wrong; the force transmitted by the pions was a residue force of the fundamental color force transmitted by massless gluons, but that aside). So I think all causes in the sketched imaginary Universe are transmitted with infinite speed. Will the whole Universe be a cause for an effect in the whole Universe?
newtonian-mechanics speed-of-light causality galilean-relativity
asked 20 hours ago
descheleschilderdescheleschilder
4,16021344
$endgroup$
|
show 5 more comments
$begingroup$
Suppose the Universe was non-relativistic so time and space would be independent of each other. In other words, both of them separately would be absolute and independent of an observer's motion (unlike the absolute spacetime in relativity). And suppose the speed of light would be infinite. Would the kind of cause and effect that we experience in our real Universe still exist in this imaginary Universe? In our Universe, it takes time for a cause to propagate and have an effect at a distance from the cause. I assume the cause is transferred by e.m. radiation and ignore the other three forces. In case of the weak force the cause will propagate with a finite speed, but because I believe the weak force is not a fundamental force, but a residue force of a more fundamental force, namely the hyper color force transmitted by hyper gluons as is explained by Haim Harari in his Rishon Model (just as the strong force was once thought to be transmitted by massive pions which turned out to be wrong; the force transmitted by the pions was a residue force of the fundamental color force transmitted by massless gluons, but that aside). So I think all causes in the sketched imaginary Universe are transmitted with infinite speed. Will the whole Universe be a cause for an effect in the whole Universe?
newtonian-mechanics speed-of-light causality galilean-relativity
asked 20 hours ago
descheleschilderdescheleschilder
4,16021344
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
Would cause and effect still exist in this Universe? This seems like a non sequitur. Could you edit the question to explain why you think there is any logical connection between this and the preceding material?
$endgroup$
– Ben Crowell
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
Can we even really apply our physics to "infinite speed light"? I thought even classical approaches to optics still considered that light moved with a non-infinite speed; they just didn't relate that to the speed of light being the limit of velocity, and assumed light speed was limited by its medium.
$endgroup$
– JMac
11 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Given that you're starting off with discarding the laws of physics - and then making assertions the result (eg speed of light infinate) - might I suggest that the world builder forum be a better place to ask?
$endgroup$
– UKMonkey
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
Of course you might!
$endgroup$
– descheleschilder
10 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@industry7 ok, but what is FTL when c = infinity?
$endgroup$
– Carl Witthoft
8 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
$begingroup$
Suppose the Universe was non-relativistic so time and space would be independent of each other. In other words, both of them separately would be absolute and independent of an observer's motion (unlike the absolute spacetime in relativity). And suppose the speed of light would be infinite. Would the kind of cause and effect that we experience in our real Universe still exist in this imaginary Universe? In our Universe, it takes time for a cause to propagate and have an effect at a distance from the cause. I assume the cause is transferred by e.m. radiation and ignore the other three forces. In case of the weak force the cause will propagate with a finite speed, but because I believe the weak force is not a fundamental force, but a residue force of a more fundamental force, namely the hyper color force transmitted by hyper gluons as is explained by Haim Harari in his Rishon Model (just as the strong force was once thought to be transmitted by massive pions which turned out to be wrong; the force transmitted by the pions was a residue force of the fundamental color force transmitted by massless gluons, but that aside). So I think all causes in the sketched imaginary Universe are transmitted with infinite speed. Will the whole Universe be a cause for an effect in the whole Universe?
newtonian-mechanics speed-of-light causality galilean-relativity
asked 20 hours ago
descheleschilderdescheleschilder
4,16021344
$endgroup$
Suppose the Universe was non-relativistic so time and space would be independent of each other. In other words, both of them separately would be absolute and independent of an observer's motion (unlike the absolute spacetime in relativity). And suppose the speed of light would be infinite. Would the kind of cause and effect that we experience in our real Universe still exist in this imaginary Universe? In our Universe, it takes time for a cause to propagate and have an effect at a distance from the cause. I assume the cause is transferred by e.m. radiation and ignore the other three forces. In case of the weak force the cause will propagate with a finite speed, but because I believe the weak force is not a fundamental force, but a residue force of a more fundamental force, namely the hyper color force transmitted by hyper gluons as is explained by Haim Harari in his Rishon Model (just as the strong force was once thought to be transmitted by massive pions which turned out to be wrong; the force transmitted by the pions was a residue force of the fundamental color force transmitted by massless gluons, but that aside). So I think all causes in the sketched imaginary Universe are transmitted with infinite speed. Will the whole Universe be a cause for an effect in the whole Universe?
newtonian-mechanics speed-of-light causality galilean-relativity
newtonian-mechanics speed-of-light causality galilean-relativity
asked 20 hours ago
descheleschilderdescheleschilder
4,16021344
asked 20 hours ago
descheleschilderdescheleschilder
4,16021344
edited 1 hour ago
descheleschilder
asked 20 hours ago
descheleschilderdescheleschilder
4,16021344
asked 20 hours ago
descheleschilderdescheleschilder
4,16021344
asked 20 hours ago
descheleschilderdescheleschilder
4,16021344
4,16021344
2
$begingroup$
Would cause and effect still exist in this Universe? This seems like a non sequitur. Could you edit the question to explain why you think there is any logical connection between this and the preceding material?
$endgroup$
– Ben Crowell
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
Can we even really apply our physics to "infinite speed light"? I thought even classical approaches to optics still considered that light moved with a non-infinite speed; they just didn't relate that to the speed of light being the limit of velocity, and assumed light speed was limited by its medium.
$endgroup$
– JMac
11 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Given that you're starting off with discarding the laws of physics - and then making assertions the result (eg speed of light infinate) - might I suggest that the world builder forum be a better place to ask?
$endgroup$
– UKMonkey
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
Of course you might!
$endgroup$
– descheleschilder
10 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@industry7 ok, but what is FTL when c = infinity?
$endgroup$
– Carl Witthoft
8 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
2
$begingroup$
Would cause and effect still exist in this Universe? This seems like a non sequitur. Could you edit the question to explain why you think there is any logical connection between this and the preceding material?
$endgroup$
– Ben Crowell
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
Can we even really apply our physics to "infinite speed light"? I thought even classical approaches to optics still considered that light moved with a non-infinite speed; they just didn't relate that to the speed of light being the limit of velocity, and assumed light speed was limited by its medium.
$endgroup$
– JMac
11 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Given that you're starting off with discarding the laws of physics - and then making assertions the result (eg speed of light infinate) - might I suggest that the world builder forum be a better place to ask?
$endgroup$
– UKMonkey
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
Of course you might!
$endgroup$
– descheleschilder
10 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@industry7 ok, but what is FTL when c = infinity?
$endgroup$
– Carl Witthoft
8 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
Would cause and effect still exist in this Universe? This seems like a non sequitur. Could you edit the question to explain why you think there is any logical connection between this and the preceding material?
$endgroup$
– Ben Crowell
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
Would cause and effect still exist in this Universe? This seems like a non sequitur. Could you edit the question to explain why you think there is any logical connection between this and the preceding material?
$endgroup$
– Ben Crowell
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
Can we even really apply our physics to "infinite speed light"? I thought even classical approaches to optics still considered that light moved with a non-infinite speed; they just didn't relate that to the speed of light being the limit of velocity, and assumed light speed was limited by its medium.
$endgroup$
– JMac
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
Can we even really apply our physics to "infinite speed light"? I thought even classical approaches to optics still considered that light moved with a non-infinite speed; they just didn't relate that to the speed of light being the limit of velocity, and assumed light speed was limited by its medium.
$endgroup$
– JMac
11 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
Given that you're starting off with discarding the laws of physics - and then making assertions the result (eg speed of light infinate) - might I suggest that the world builder forum be a better place to ask?
$endgroup$
– UKMonkey
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
Given that you're starting off with discarding the laws of physics - and then making assertions the result (eg speed of light infinate) - might I suggest that the world builder forum be a better place to ask?
$endgroup$
– UKMonkey
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
Of course you might!
$endgroup$
– descheleschilder
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
Of course you might!
$endgroup$
– descheleschilder
10 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@industry7 ok, but what is FTL when c = infinity?
$endgroup$
– Carl Witthoft
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@industry7 ok, but what is FTL when c = infinity?
$endgroup$
– Carl Witthoft
8 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
My stock answer to this is to point to video games. We have zero trouble modeling crude "universes" in which light and gravity travel instantaneously, but yet objects move at normal speeds using standard Newtonian mechanics. Taking the limit as framerates go to infinity doesn't change anything.
A more important issue would be addressing issues like Olber's Paradox. With infinite light speeds, all the light in the universe goes everywhere, instantly. The result would be an instantaneous leveling of all heat levels everywhere due to black-body radiation.
Since all energy levels would be constant, no thermodynamic processes would function, and entropy would instantly go to 100%. Heat death at the moment of creation. No causes. No effects.
Of course, nobody knew about blackbody radiation back then either, so it's logical to conceive of a universe where light doesn't directly transfer energy, and space dust absorbs most of the light in the universe, fixing Olber's Paradox.
But then you have to head down the rabbit hole to figure out how light allows us to see things in the first place. Then figure out how to get chemistry to work like it does in real life without light transferring energy. And how the Sun keeps the Earth warm. Etc.
At the end of the day, if you ask "is it possible?", it probably is, but the universe in question might ultimately have little in common with ours.
answered 14 hours ago
MichaelSMichaelS
1,070415
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
"Taking the limit as framerates go to infinity doesn't change anything." - citation needed. If there is anything higher maths has taught me is that assuming things do/don't break in limits to infinity is a mug's game without proof. As framerates go to infinity, you either need to have precision to go infinity (which has weird effects) or you need to chunk things (which makes the framerate not actually be infinity). Things "changing the next frame" at unbounded distances are not infinite speed. Things changing their own frame is infinite speed.
$endgroup$
– Yakk
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
Olber's Paradox doesn't hold. The light coming from distant stars that reaches us instantaneously is to faint to contribute to an instantaneous leveling of all heat levels of all massive bodies. But to be sure you have to make a calculation.
$endgroup$
– descheleschilder
11 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
I don't think that infinite speed of light would change the rate at which heat energy is released as photons. Obviously it changes the rate at which those emitted photons get absorbed on the other end (when accounting for the static delay). But the process would, I think, still require the same amount of time on the production side.
$endgroup$
– industry7
9 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@descheleschilder That's only true if the universe is not infinite. We don't know if the universe is infinite in size in real life because we can't see past the cosmological event horizon. But if the speed of light is infinite, and the universe is infinite in size, every point in the night sky will be a star.
$endgroup$
– Ryan_L
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Actually, there would be no radiation at all. At $c = infty$, Planck's law becomes zero everywhere. This seems to suggest it would be actually impossible for an object to cool off in a vacuum. That doesn't seem good. This makes sense because the only way the electromagnetic field can transmit energy from point to point is if there is a finite transmission speed so that waves - which carry energy - can exist.
$endgroup$
– The_Sympathizer
2 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Cause and effect would still exist because not everything propagates at the speed of light. My fist punching you could still be the cause for you feeling pain.
However, this infinite-speed-of-light approach would open the door for a few interesting effects
- Causality may be non-local. We may be forced to recognize a pair of events separated by a photon's motion as a single event for purposes of defining causality. This comes from the reality that information can indeed propagate sufficiently instantaneously as to be treated as instant.
- The exact definition of "speed of light is infinite" would come under intense scrutiny. We can't actually say a speed is infinite because infinity is not a real number. It is, instead, typically used as a shorthand for a limit which says something more along the lines of "the speed of light is boundless." Tiny quivvers in your wording can change things dramatically.
- Uncaused causes could be more frequent. If two systems exchange photons, they could easily form a chain reaction which starts to look more and more like uncaused causes. Whether they are actually uncaused causes would depend on your precise wording, as mentioned earlier.
answered 19 hours ago
Cort AmmonCort Ammon
23.8k34779
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I agree, of course, that the elementary particles (with a mass) don't travel with the speed of light (which is infinite in this hypothetical Universe). But I think it is more appropriate in this case to say that the whole Universe is part of a chain of cause and effect. If you punch me on the nose it's not your fist that is the cause for the effect that my nose starts to hurt but rather the whole collection of elementary particles in the Universe (I refer to the non-locality you mention).
$endgroup$
– descheleschilder
15 hours ago
$begingroup$
Perhaps instead of "the speed of light is infinite" one could consider one or both of the classical vacuum permittivity or permeability to be zero, and the consequences thereof.
$endgroup$
– JdeBP
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
"We can't actually say a speed is infinite because infinity is not a real number." Speed is distance divided by time. If there is finite distance and zero time, then speed is infinite.
$endgroup$
– Acccumulation
10 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Acccumulation That is not actually true. A finite real number divided by zero is undefined, not infinity. For rigorous handling of division by infintessimally small numbers, we may rely on limits, but those have their own set of rules.
$endgroup$
– Cort Ammon
10 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@Acccumulation The difference is a very important detail. It isn't that big of a deal when working with nice finite numbers like in the real world, but in a question like this, the difference between $frac10=infty$ and $lim_xto 0frac1x=infty$ is on the scale of the difference between causality and not, so for this question pedantic attention to that detail does indeed matter.
$endgroup$
– Cort Ammon
10 hours ago
|
show 6 more comments
$begingroup$
Yes. Everyone observed cause and effect for thousands of years before Einstein came up with Relativity and before anyone knew that the speed of light was finite.
For example, I hit a golf ball and it sails into the air. It sails into the air because I hit it. This has nothing to do with Relativity.
answered 20 hours ago
G. SmithG. Smith
9,31611428
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
But what if the Universe was non-relativistic and the speed of light infinite in those ancient times?
$endgroup$
– descheleschilder
20 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
You're asserting exactly the thing that the OP is skeptical about. If the universe was non-relativistic and the speed of light was infinite, would it still be possible to hit a golf ball and have it sail into the air? We're not talking about the knowledge of relativity, but rather the (imagined) reality. Relativity explains why causes always precede their consequences; if relativity is wrong and speed of light infinite, do we still have that guarantee or not?
$endgroup$
– Luaan
14 hours ago
5
$begingroup$
That "everyone observed cause and effect [...] before Einstein came up with Relativity" does not mean that the universe was non-relativistic before Einstein, does it? So the statement is completely irrelevant, isn't it?
$endgroup$
– Peter A. Schneider
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
If $c rightarrow infty$, how could there be any particle/field interaction? If there's no interaction at all, how could we punch someone on the face or hit a golf ball?
$endgroup$
– Cham
28 mins ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "151"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f467768%2fare-cause-and-effect-the-same-as-in-our-universe-in-a-non-relativistic-newtonia%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
My stock answer to this is to point to video games. We have zero trouble modeling crude "universes" in which light and gravity travel instantaneously, but yet objects move at normal speeds using standard Newtonian mechanics. Taking the limit as framerates go to infinity doesn't change anything.
A more important issue would be addressing issues like Olber's Paradox. With infinite light speeds, all the light in the universe goes everywhere, instantly. The result would be an instantaneous leveling of all heat levels everywhere due to black-body radiation.
Since all energy levels would be constant, no thermodynamic processes would function, and entropy would instantly go to 100%. Heat death at the moment of creation. No causes. No effects.
Of course, nobody knew about blackbody radiation back then either, so it's logical to conceive of a universe where light doesn't directly transfer energy, and space dust absorbs most of the light in the universe, fixing Olber's Paradox.
But then you have to head down the rabbit hole to figure out how light allows us to see things in the first place. Then figure out how to get chemistry to work like it does in real life without light transferring energy. And how the Sun keeps the Earth warm. Etc.
At the end of the day, if you ask "is it possible?", it probably is, but the universe in question might ultimately have little in common with ours.
answered 14 hours ago
MichaelSMichaelS
1,070415
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
"Taking the limit as framerates go to infinity doesn't change anything." - citation needed. If there is anything higher maths has taught me is that assuming things do/don't break in limits to infinity is a mug's game without proof. As framerates go to infinity, you either need to have precision to go infinity (which has weird effects) or you need to chunk things (which makes the framerate not actually be infinity). Things "changing the next frame" at unbounded distances are not infinite speed. Things changing their own frame is infinite speed.
$endgroup$
– Yakk
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
Olber's Paradox doesn't hold. The light coming from distant stars that reaches us instantaneously is to faint to contribute to an instantaneous leveling of all heat levels of all massive bodies. But to be sure you have to make a calculation.
$endgroup$
– descheleschilder
11 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
I don't think that infinite speed of light would change the rate at which heat energy is released as photons. Obviously it changes the rate at which those emitted photons get absorbed on the other end (when accounting for the static delay). But the process would, I think, still require the same amount of time on the production side.
$endgroup$
– industry7
9 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@descheleschilder That's only true if the universe is not infinite. We don't know if the universe is infinite in size in real life because we can't see past the cosmological event horizon. But if the speed of light is infinite, and the universe is infinite in size, every point in the night sky will be a star.
$endgroup$
– Ryan_L
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Actually, there would be no radiation at all. At $c = infty$, Planck's law becomes zero everywhere. This seems to suggest it would be actually impossible for an object to cool off in a vacuum. That doesn't seem good. This makes sense because the only way the electromagnetic field can transmit energy from point to point is if there is a finite transmission speed so that waves - which carry energy - can exist.
$endgroup$
– The_Sympathizer
2 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
My stock answer to this is to point to video games. We have zero trouble modeling crude "universes" in which light and gravity travel instantaneously, but yet objects move at normal speeds using standard Newtonian mechanics. Taking the limit as framerates go to infinity doesn't change anything.
A more important issue would be addressing issues like Olber's Paradox. With infinite light speeds, all the light in the universe goes everywhere, instantly. The result would be an instantaneous leveling of all heat levels everywhere due to black-body radiation.
Since all energy levels would be constant, no thermodynamic processes would function, and entropy would instantly go to 100%. Heat death at the moment of creation. No causes. No effects.
Of course, nobody knew about blackbody radiation back then either, so it's logical to conceive of a universe where light doesn't directly transfer energy, and space dust absorbs most of the light in the universe, fixing Olber's Paradox.
But then you have to head down the rabbit hole to figure out how light allows us to see things in the first place. Then figure out how to get chemistry to work like it does in real life without light transferring energy. And how the Sun keeps the Earth warm. Etc.
At the end of the day, if you ask "is it possible?", it probably is, but the universe in question might ultimately have little in common with ours.
answered 14 hours ago
MichaelSMichaelS
1,070415
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
"Taking the limit as framerates go to infinity doesn't change anything." - citation needed. If there is anything higher maths has taught me is that assuming things do/don't break in limits to infinity is a mug's game without proof. As framerates go to infinity, you either need to have precision to go infinity (which has weird effects) or you need to chunk things (which makes the framerate not actually be infinity). Things "changing the next frame" at unbounded distances are not infinite speed. Things changing their own frame is infinite speed.
$endgroup$
– Yakk
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
Olber's Paradox doesn't hold. The light coming from distant stars that reaches us instantaneously is to faint to contribute to an instantaneous leveling of all heat levels of all massive bodies. But to be sure you have to make a calculation.
$endgroup$
– descheleschilder
11 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
I don't think that infinite speed of light would change the rate at which heat energy is released as photons. Obviously it changes the rate at which those emitted photons get absorbed on the other end (when accounting for the static delay). But the process would, I think, still require the same amount of time on the production side.
$endgroup$
– industry7
9 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@descheleschilder That's only true if the universe is not infinite. We don't know if the universe is infinite in size in real life because we can't see past the cosmological event horizon. But if the speed of light is infinite, and the universe is infinite in size, every point in the night sky will be a star.
$endgroup$
– Ryan_L
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Actually, there would be no radiation at all. At $c = infty$, Planck's law becomes zero everywhere. This seems to suggest it would be actually impossible for an object to cool off in a vacuum. That doesn't seem good. This makes sense because the only way the electromagnetic field can transmit energy from point to point is if there is a finite transmission speed so that waves - which carry energy - can exist.
$endgroup$
– The_Sympathizer
2 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
My stock answer to this is to point to video games. We have zero trouble modeling crude "universes" in which light and gravity travel instantaneously, but yet objects move at normal speeds using standard Newtonian mechanics. Taking the limit as framerates go to infinity doesn't change anything.
A more important issue would be addressing issues like Olber's Paradox. With infinite light speeds, all the light in the universe goes everywhere, instantly. The result would be an instantaneous leveling of all heat levels everywhere due to black-body radiation.
Since all energy levels would be constant, no thermodynamic processes would function, and entropy would instantly go to 100%. Heat death at the moment of creation. No causes. No effects.
Of course, nobody knew about blackbody radiation back then either, so it's logical to conceive of a universe where light doesn't directly transfer energy, and space dust absorbs most of the light in the universe, fixing Olber's Paradox.
But then you have to head down the rabbit hole to figure out how light allows us to see things in the first place. Then figure out how to get chemistry to work like it does in real life without light transferring energy. And how the Sun keeps the Earth warm. Etc.
At the end of the day, if you ask "is it possible?", it probably is, but the universe in question might ultimately have little in common with ours.
answered 14 hours ago
MichaelSMichaelS
1,070415
$endgroup$
My stock answer to this is to point to video games. We have zero trouble modeling crude "universes" in which light and gravity travel instantaneously, but yet objects move at normal speeds using standard Newtonian mechanics. Taking the limit as framerates go to infinity doesn't change anything.
A more important issue would be addressing issues like Olber's Paradox. With infinite light speeds, all the light in the universe goes everywhere, instantly. The result would be an instantaneous leveling of all heat levels everywhere due to black-body radiation.
Since all energy levels would be constant, no thermodynamic processes would function, and entropy would instantly go to 100%. Heat death at the moment of creation. No causes. No effects.
Of course, nobody knew about blackbody radiation back then either, so it's logical to conceive of a universe where light doesn't directly transfer energy, and space dust absorbs most of the light in the universe, fixing Olber's Paradox.
But then you have to head down the rabbit hole to figure out how light allows us to see things in the first place. Then figure out how to get chemistry to work like it does in real life without light transferring energy. And how the Sun keeps the Earth warm. Etc.
At the end of the day, if you ask "is it possible?", it probably is, but the universe in question might ultimately have little in common with ours.
answered 14 hours ago
MichaelSMichaelS
1,070415
answered 14 hours ago
MichaelSMichaelS
1,070415
answered 14 hours ago
MichaelSMichaelS
1,070415
answered 14 hours ago
MichaelSMichaelS
1,070415
1,070415
1
$begingroup$
"Taking the limit as framerates go to infinity doesn't change anything." - citation needed. If there is anything higher maths has taught me is that assuming things do/don't break in limits to infinity is a mug's game without proof. As framerates go to infinity, you either need to have precision to go infinity (which has weird effects) or you need to chunk things (which makes the framerate not actually be infinity). Things "changing the next frame" at unbounded distances are not infinite speed. Things changing their own frame is infinite speed.
$endgroup$
– Yakk
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
Olber's Paradox doesn't hold. The light coming from distant stars that reaches us instantaneously is to faint to contribute to an instantaneous leveling of all heat levels of all massive bodies. But to be sure you have to make a calculation.
$endgroup$
– descheleschilder
11 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
I don't think that infinite speed of light would change the rate at which heat energy is released as photons. Obviously it changes the rate at which those emitted photons get absorbed on the other end (when accounting for the static delay). But the process would, I think, still require the same amount of time on the production side.
$endgroup$
– industry7
9 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@descheleschilder That's only true if the universe is not infinite. We don't know if the universe is infinite in size in real life because we can't see past the cosmological event horizon. But if the speed of light is infinite, and the universe is infinite in size, every point in the night sky will be a star.
$endgroup$
– Ryan_L
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Actually, there would be no radiation at all. At $c = infty$, Planck's law becomes zero everywhere. This seems to suggest it would be actually impossible for an object to cool off in a vacuum. That doesn't seem good. This makes sense because the only way the electromagnetic field can transmit energy from point to point is if there is a finite transmission speed so that waves - which carry energy - can exist.
$endgroup$
– The_Sympathizer
2 mins ago
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
"Taking the limit as framerates go to infinity doesn't change anything." - citation needed. If there is anything higher maths has taught me is that assuming things do/don't break in limits to infinity is a mug's game without proof. As framerates go to infinity, you either need to have precision to go infinity (which has weird effects) or you need to chunk things (which makes the framerate not actually be infinity). Things "changing the next frame" at unbounded distances are not infinite speed. Things changing their own frame is infinite speed.
$endgroup$
– Yakk
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
Olber's Paradox doesn't hold. The light coming from distant stars that reaches us instantaneously is to faint to contribute to an instantaneous leveling of all heat levels of all massive bodies. But to be sure you have to make a calculation.
$endgroup$
– descheleschilder
11 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
I don't think that infinite speed of light would change the rate at which heat energy is released as photons. Obviously it changes the rate at which those emitted photons get absorbed on the other end (when accounting for the static delay). But the process would, I think, still require the same amount of time on the production side.
$endgroup$
– industry7
9 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@descheleschilder That's only true if the universe is not infinite. We don't know if the universe is infinite in size in real life because we can't see past the cosmological event horizon. But if the speed of light is infinite, and the universe is infinite in size, every point in the night sky will be a star.
$endgroup$
– Ryan_L
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Actually, there would be no radiation at all. At $c = infty$, Planck's law becomes zero everywhere. This seems to suggest it would be actually impossible for an object to cool off in a vacuum. That doesn't seem good. This makes sense because the only way the electromagnetic field can transmit energy from point to point is if there is a finite transmission speed so that waves - which carry energy - can exist.
$endgroup$
– The_Sympathizer
2 mins ago
1
1
$begingroup$
"Taking the limit as framerates go to infinity doesn't change anything." - citation needed. If there is anything higher maths has taught me is that assuming things do/don't break in limits to infinity is a mug's game without proof. As framerates go to infinity, you either need to have precision to go infinity (which has weird effects) or you need to chunk things (which makes the framerate not actually be infinity). Things "changing the next frame" at unbounded distances are not infinite speed. Things changing their own frame is infinite speed.
$endgroup$
– Yakk
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
"Taking the limit as framerates go to infinity doesn't change anything." - citation needed. If there is anything higher maths has taught me is that assuming things do/don't break in limits to infinity is a mug's game without proof. As framerates go to infinity, you either need to have precision to go infinity (which has weird effects) or you need to chunk things (which makes the framerate not actually be infinity). Things "changing the next frame" at unbounded distances are not infinite speed. Things changing their own frame is infinite speed.
$endgroup$
– Yakk
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
Olber's Paradox doesn't hold. The light coming from distant stars that reaches us instantaneously is to faint to contribute to an instantaneous leveling of all heat levels of all massive bodies. But to be sure you have to make a calculation.
$endgroup$
– descheleschilder
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
Olber's Paradox doesn't hold. The light coming from distant stars that reaches us instantaneously is to faint to contribute to an instantaneous leveling of all heat levels of all massive bodies. But to be sure you have to make a calculation.
$endgroup$
– descheleschilder
11 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
I don't think that infinite speed of light would change the rate at which heat energy is released as photons. Obviously it changes the rate at which those emitted photons get absorbed on the other end (when accounting for the static delay). But the process would, I think, still require the same amount of time on the production side.
$endgroup$
– industry7
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
I don't think that infinite speed of light would change the rate at which heat energy is released as photons. Obviously it changes the rate at which those emitted photons get absorbed on the other end (when accounting for the static delay). But the process would, I think, still require the same amount of time on the production side.
$endgroup$
– industry7
9 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@descheleschilder That's only true if the universe is not infinite. We don't know if the universe is infinite in size in real life because we can't see past the cosmological event horizon. But if the speed of light is infinite, and the universe is infinite in size, every point in the night sky will be a star.
$endgroup$
– Ryan_L
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@descheleschilder That's only true if the universe is not infinite. We don't know if the universe is infinite in size in real life because we can't see past the cosmological event horizon. But if the speed of light is infinite, and the universe is infinite in size, every point in the night sky will be a star.
$endgroup$
– Ryan_L
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Actually, there would be no radiation at all. At $c = infty$, Planck's law becomes zero everywhere. This seems to suggest it would be actually impossible for an object to cool off in a vacuum. That doesn't seem good. This makes sense because the only way the electromagnetic field can transmit energy from point to point is if there is a finite transmission speed so that waves - which carry energy - can exist.
$endgroup$
– The_Sympathizer
2 mins ago
$begingroup$
Actually, there would be no radiation at all. At $c = infty$, Planck's law becomes zero everywhere. This seems to suggest it would be actually impossible for an object to cool off in a vacuum. That doesn't seem good. This makes sense because the only way the electromagnetic field can transmit energy from point to point is if there is a finite transmission speed so that waves - which carry energy - can exist.
$endgroup$
– The_Sympathizer
2 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Cause and effect would still exist because not everything propagates at the speed of light. My fist punching you could still be the cause for you feeling pain.
However, this infinite-speed-of-light approach would open the door for a few interesting effects
- Causality may be non-local. We may be forced to recognize a pair of events separated by a photon's motion as a single event for purposes of defining causality. This comes from the reality that information can indeed propagate sufficiently instantaneously as to be treated as instant.
- The exact definition of "speed of light is infinite" would come under intense scrutiny. We can't actually say a speed is infinite because infinity is not a real number. It is, instead, typically used as a shorthand for a limit which says something more along the lines of "the speed of light is boundless." Tiny quivvers in your wording can change things dramatically.
- Uncaused causes could be more frequent. If two systems exchange photons, they could easily form a chain reaction which starts to look more and more like uncaused causes. Whether they are actually uncaused causes would depend on your precise wording, as mentioned earlier.
answered 19 hours ago
Cort AmmonCort Ammon
23.8k34779
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I agree, of course, that the elementary particles (with a mass) don't travel with the speed of light (which is infinite in this hypothetical Universe). But I think it is more appropriate in this case to say that the whole Universe is part of a chain of cause and effect. If you punch me on the nose it's not your fist that is the cause for the effect that my nose starts to hurt but rather the whole collection of elementary particles in the Universe (I refer to the non-locality you mention).
$endgroup$
– descheleschilder
15 hours ago
$begingroup$
Perhaps instead of "the speed of light is infinite" one could consider one or both of the classical vacuum permittivity or permeability to be zero, and the consequences thereof.
$endgroup$
– JdeBP
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
"We can't actually say a speed is infinite because infinity is not a real number." Speed is distance divided by time. If there is finite distance and zero time, then speed is infinite.
$endgroup$
– Acccumulation
10 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Acccumulation That is not actually true. A finite real number divided by zero is undefined, not infinity. For rigorous handling of division by infintessimally small numbers, we may rely on limits, but those have their own set of rules.
$endgroup$
– Cort Ammon
10 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@Acccumulation The difference is a very important detail. It isn't that big of a deal when working with nice finite numbers like in the real world, but in a question like this, the difference between $frac10=infty$ and $lim_xto 0frac1x=infty$ is on the scale of the difference between causality and not, so for this question pedantic attention to that detail does indeed matter.
$endgroup$
– Cort Ammon
10 hours ago
|
show 6 more comments
$begingroup$
Cause and effect would still exist because not everything propagates at the speed of light. My fist punching you could still be the cause for you feeling pain.
However, this infinite-speed-of-light approach would open the door for a few interesting effects
- Causality may be non-local. We may be forced to recognize a pair of events separated by a photon's motion as a single event for purposes of defining causality. This comes from the reality that information can indeed propagate sufficiently instantaneously as to be treated as instant.
- The exact definition of "speed of light is infinite" would come under intense scrutiny. We can't actually say a speed is infinite because infinity is not a real number. It is, instead, typically used as a shorthand for a limit which says something more along the lines of "the speed of light is boundless." Tiny quivvers in your wording can change things dramatically.
- Uncaused causes could be more frequent. If two systems exchange photons, they could easily form a chain reaction which starts to look more and more like uncaused causes. Whether they are actually uncaused causes would depend on your precise wording, as mentioned earlier.
answered 19 hours ago
Cort AmmonCort Ammon
23.8k34779
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I agree, of course, that the elementary particles (with a mass) don't travel with the speed of light (which is infinite in this hypothetical Universe). But I think it is more appropriate in this case to say that the whole Universe is part of a chain of cause and effect. If you punch me on the nose it's not your fist that is the cause for the effect that my nose starts to hurt but rather the whole collection of elementary particles in the Universe (I refer to the non-locality you mention).
$endgroup$
– descheleschilder
15 hours ago
$begingroup$
Perhaps instead of "the speed of light is infinite" one could consider one or both of the classical vacuum permittivity or permeability to be zero, and the consequences thereof.
$endgroup$
– JdeBP
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
"We can't actually say a speed is infinite because infinity is not a real number." Speed is distance divided by time. If there is finite distance and zero time, then speed is infinite.
$endgroup$
– Acccumulation
10 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Acccumulation That is not actually true. A finite real number divided by zero is undefined, not infinity. For rigorous handling of division by infintessimally small numbers, we may rely on limits, but those have their own set of rules.
$endgroup$
– Cort Ammon
10 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@Acccumulation The difference is a very important detail. It isn't that big of a deal when working with nice finite numbers like in the real world, but in a question like this, the difference between $frac10=infty$ and $lim_xto 0frac1x=infty$ is on the scale of the difference between causality and not, so for this question pedantic attention to that detail does indeed matter.
$endgroup$
– Cort Ammon
10 hours ago
|
show 6 more comments
$begingroup$
Cause and effect would still exist because not everything propagates at the speed of light. My fist punching you could still be the cause for you feeling pain.
However, this infinite-speed-of-light approach would open the door for a few interesting effects
- Causality may be non-local. We may be forced to recognize a pair of events separated by a photon's motion as a single event for purposes of defining causality. This comes from the reality that information can indeed propagate sufficiently instantaneously as to be treated as instant.
- The exact definition of "speed of light is infinite" would come under intense scrutiny. We can't actually say a speed is infinite because infinity is not a real number. It is, instead, typically used as a shorthand for a limit which says something more along the lines of "the speed of light is boundless." Tiny quivvers in your wording can change things dramatically.
- Uncaused causes could be more frequent. If two systems exchange photons, they could easily form a chain reaction which starts to look more and more like uncaused causes. Whether they are actually uncaused causes would depend on your precise wording, as mentioned earlier.
answered 19 hours ago
Cort AmmonCort Ammon
23.8k34779
$endgroup$
Cause and effect would still exist because not everything propagates at the speed of light. My fist punching you could still be the cause for you feeling pain.
However, this infinite-speed-of-light approach would open the door for a few interesting effects
- Causality may be non-local. We may be forced to recognize a pair of events separated by a photon's motion as a single event for purposes of defining causality. This comes from the reality that information can indeed propagate sufficiently instantaneously as to be treated as instant.
- The exact definition of "speed of light is infinite" would come under intense scrutiny. We can't actually say a speed is infinite because infinity is not a real number. It is, instead, typically used as a shorthand for a limit which says something more along the lines of "the speed of light is boundless." Tiny quivvers in your wording can change things dramatically.
- Uncaused causes could be more frequent. If two systems exchange photons, they could easily form a chain reaction which starts to look more and more like uncaused causes. Whether they are actually uncaused causes would depend on your precise wording, as mentioned earlier.
answered 19 hours ago
Cort AmmonCort Ammon
23.8k34779
answered 19 hours ago
Cort AmmonCort Ammon
23.8k34779
answered 19 hours ago
Cort AmmonCort Ammon
23.8k34779
answered 19 hours ago
Cort AmmonCort Ammon
23.8k34779
23.8k34779
$begingroup$
I agree, of course, that the elementary particles (with a mass) don't travel with the speed of light (which is infinite in this hypothetical Universe). But I think it is more appropriate in this case to say that the whole Universe is part of a chain of cause and effect. If you punch me on the nose it's not your fist that is the cause for the effect that my nose starts to hurt but rather the whole collection of elementary particles in the Universe (I refer to the non-locality you mention).
$endgroup$
– descheleschilder
15 hours ago
$begingroup$
Perhaps instead of "the speed of light is infinite" one could consider one or both of the classical vacuum permittivity or permeability to be zero, and the consequences thereof.
$endgroup$
– JdeBP
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
"We can't actually say a speed is infinite because infinity is not a real number." Speed is distance divided by time. If there is finite distance and zero time, then speed is infinite.
$endgroup$
– Acccumulation
10 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Acccumulation That is not actually true. A finite real number divided by zero is undefined, not infinity. For rigorous handling of division by infintessimally small numbers, we may rely on limits, but those have their own set of rules.
$endgroup$
– Cort Ammon
10 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@Acccumulation The difference is a very important detail. It isn't that big of a deal when working with nice finite numbers like in the real world, but in a question like this, the difference between $frac10=infty$ and $lim_xto 0frac1x=infty$ is on the scale of the difference between causality and not, so for this question pedantic attention to that detail does indeed matter.
$endgroup$
– Cort Ammon
10 hours ago
|
show 6 more comments
$begingroup$
I agree, of course, that the elementary particles (with a mass) don't travel with the speed of light (which is infinite in this hypothetical Universe). But I think it is more appropriate in this case to say that the whole Universe is part of a chain of cause and effect. If you punch me on the nose it's not your fist that is the cause for the effect that my nose starts to hurt but rather the whole collection of elementary particles in the Universe (I refer to the non-locality you mention).
$endgroup$
– descheleschilder
15 hours ago
$begingroup$
Perhaps instead of "the speed of light is infinite" one could consider one or both of the classical vacuum permittivity or permeability to be zero, and the consequences thereof.
$endgroup$
– JdeBP
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
"We can't actually say a speed is infinite because infinity is not a real number." Speed is distance divided by time. If there is finite distance and zero time, then speed is infinite.
$endgroup$
– Acccumulation
10 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Acccumulation That is not actually true. A finite real number divided by zero is undefined, not infinity. For rigorous handling of division by infintessimally small numbers, we may rely on limits, but those have their own set of rules.
$endgroup$
– Cort Ammon
10 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@Acccumulation The difference is a very important detail. It isn't that big of a deal when working with nice finite numbers like in the real world, but in a question like this, the difference between $frac10=infty$ and $lim_xto 0frac1x=infty$ is on the scale of the difference between causality and not, so for this question pedantic attention to that detail does indeed matter.
$endgroup$
– Cort Ammon
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
I agree, of course, that the elementary particles (with a mass) don't travel with the speed of light (which is infinite in this hypothetical Universe). But I think it is more appropriate in this case to say that the whole Universe is part of a chain of cause and effect. If you punch me on the nose it's not your fist that is the cause for the effect that my nose starts to hurt but rather the whole collection of elementary particles in the Universe (I refer to the non-locality you mention).
$endgroup$
– descheleschilder
15 hours ago
$begingroup$
I agree, of course, that the elementary particles (with a mass) don't travel with the speed of light (which is infinite in this hypothetical Universe). But I think it is more appropriate in this case to say that the whole Universe is part of a chain of cause and effect. If you punch me on the nose it's not your fist that is the cause for the effect that my nose starts to hurt but rather the whole collection of elementary particles in the Universe (I refer to the non-locality you mention).
$endgroup$
– descheleschilder
15 hours ago
$begingroup$
Perhaps instead of "the speed of light is infinite" one could consider one or both of the classical vacuum permittivity or permeability to be zero, and the consequences thereof.
$endgroup$
– JdeBP
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
Perhaps instead of "the speed of light is infinite" one could consider one or both of the classical vacuum permittivity or permeability to be zero, and the consequences thereof.
$endgroup$
– JdeBP
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
"We can't actually say a speed is infinite because infinity is not a real number." Speed is distance divided by time. If there is finite distance and zero time, then speed is infinite.
$endgroup$
– Acccumulation
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
"We can't actually say a speed is infinite because infinity is not a real number." Speed is distance divided by time. If there is finite distance and zero time, then speed is infinite.
$endgroup$
– Acccumulation
10 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@Acccumulation That is not actually true. A finite real number divided by zero is undefined, not infinity. For rigorous handling of division by infintessimally small numbers, we may rely on limits, but those have their own set of rules.
$endgroup$
– Cort Ammon
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Acccumulation That is not actually true. A finite real number divided by zero is undefined, not infinity. For rigorous handling of division by infintessimally small numbers, we may rely on limits, but those have their own set of rules.
$endgroup$
– Cort Ammon
10 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
@Acccumulation The difference is a very important detail. It isn't that big of a deal when working with nice finite numbers like in the real world, but in a question like this, the difference between $frac10=infty$ and $lim_xto 0frac1x=infty$ is on the scale of the difference between causality and not, so for this question pedantic attention to that detail does indeed matter.
$endgroup$
– Cort Ammon
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Acccumulation The difference is a very important detail. It isn't that big of a deal when working with nice finite numbers like in the real world, but in a question like this, the difference between $frac10=infty$ and $lim_xto 0frac1x=infty$ is on the scale of the difference between causality and not, so for this question pedantic attention to that detail does indeed matter.
$endgroup$
– Cort Ammon
10 hours ago
|
show 6 more comments
$begingroup$
Yes. Everyone observed cause and effect for thousands of years before Einstein came up with Relativity and before anyone knew that the speed of light was finite.
For example, I hit a golf ball and it sails into the air. It sails into the air because I hit it. This has nothing to do with Relativity.
answered 20 hours ago
G. SmithG. Smith
9,31611428
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
But what if the Universe was non-relativistic and the speed of light infinite in those ancient times?
$endgroup$
– descheleschilder
20 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
You're asserting exactly the thing that the OP is skeptical about. If the universe was non-relativistic and the speed of light was infinite, would it still be possible to hit a golf ball and have it sail into the air? We're not talking about the knowledge of relativity, but rather the (imagined) reality. Relativity explains why causes always precede their consequences; if relativity is wrong and speed of light infinite, do we still have that guarantee or not?
$endgroup$
– Luaan
14 hours ago
5
$begingroup$
That "everyone observed cause and effect [...] before Einstein came up with Relativity" does not mean that the universe was non-relativistic before Einstein, does it? So the statement is completely irrelevant, isn't it?
$endgroup$
– Peter A. Schneider
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
If $c rightarrow infty$, how could there be any particle/field interaction? If there's no interaction at all, how could we punch someone on the face or hit a golf ball?
$endgroup$
– Cham
28 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Yes. Everyone observed cause and effect for thousands of years before Einstein came up with Relativity and before anyone knew that the speed of light was finite.
For example, I hit a golf ball and it sails into the air. It sails into the air because I hit it. This has nothing to do with Relativity.
answered 20 hours ago
G. SmithG. Smith
9,31611428
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
But what if the Universe was non-relativistic and the speed of light infinite in those ancient times?
$endgroup$
– descheleschilder
20 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
You're asserting exactly the thing that the OP is skeptical about. If the universe was non-relativistic and the speed of light was infinite, would it still be possible to hit a golf ball and have it sail into the air? We're not talking about the knowledge of relativity, but rather the (imagined) reality. Relativity explains why causes always precede their consequences; if relativity is wrong and speed of light infinite, do we still have that guarantee or not?
$endgroup$
– Luaan
14 hours ago
5
$begingroup$
That "everyone observed cause and effect [...] before Einstein came up with Relativity" does not mean that the universe was non-relativistic before Einstein, does it? So the statement is completely irrelevant, isn't it?
$endgroup$
– Peter A. Schneider
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
If $c rightarrow infty$, how could there be any particle/field interaction? If there's no interaction at all, how could we punch someone on the face or hit a golf ball?
$endgroup$
– Cham
28 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Yes. Everyone observed cause and effect for thousands of years before Einstein came up with Relativity and before anyone knew that the speed of light was finite.
For example, I hit a golf ball and it sails into the air. It sails into the air because I hit it. This has nothing to do with Relativity.
answered 20 hours ago
G. SmithG. Smith
9,31611428
$endgroup$
Yes. Everyone observed cause and effect for thousands of years before Einstein came up with Relativity and before anyone knew that the speed of light was finite.
For example, I hit a golf ball and it sails into the air. It sails into the air because I hit it. This has nothing to do with Relativity.
answered 20 hours ago
G. SmithG. Smith
9,31611428
answered 20 hours ago
G. SmithG. Smith
9,31611428
answered 20 hours ago
G. SmithG. Smith
9,31611428
answered 20 hours ago
G. SmithG. Smith
9,31611428
9,31611428
2
$begingroup$
But what if the Universe was non-relativistic and the speed of light infinite in those ancient times?
$endgroup$
– descheleschilder
20 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
You're asserting exactly the thing that the OP is skeptical about. If the universe was non-relativistic and the speed of light was infinite, would it still be possible to hit a golf ball and have it sail into the air? We're not talking about the knowledge of relativity, but rather the (imagined) reality. Relativity explains why causes always precede their consequences; if relativity is wrong and speed of light infinite, do we still have that guarantee or not?
$endgroup$
– Luaan
14 hours ago
5
$begingroup$
That "everyone observed cause and effect [...] before Einstein came up with Relativity" does not mean that the universe was non-relativistic before Einstein, does it? So the statement is completely irrelevant, isn't it?
$endgroup$
– Peter A. Schneider
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
If $c rightarrow infty$, how could there be any particle/field interaction? If there's no interaction at all, how could we punch someone on the face or hit a golf ball?
$endgroup$
– Cham
28 mins ago
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
But what if the Universe was non-relativistic and the speed of light infinite in those ancient times?
$endgroup$
– descheleschilder
20 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
You're asserting exactly the thing that the OP is skeptical about. If the universe was non-relativistic and the speed of light was infinite, would it still be possible to hit a golf ball and have it sail into the air? We're not talking about the knowledge of relativity, but rather the (imagined) reality. Relativity explains why causes always precede their consequences; if relativity is wrong and speed of light infinite, do we still have that guarantee or not?
$endgroup$
– Luaan
14 hours ago
5
$begingroup$
That "everyone observed cause and effect [...] before Einstein came up with Relativity" does not mean that the universe was non-relativistic before Einstein, does it? So the statement is completely irrelevant, isn't it?
$endgroup$
– Peter A. Schneider
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
If $c rightarrow infty$, how could there be any particle/field interaction? If there's no interaction at all, how could we punch someone on the face or hit a golf ball?
$endgroup$
– Cham
28 mins ago
2
2
$begingroup$
But what if the Universe was non-relativistic and the speed of light infinite in those ancient times?
$endgroup$
– descheleschilder
20 hours ago
$begingroup$
But what if the Universe was non-relativistic and the speed of light infinite in those ancient times?
$endgroup$
– descheleschilder
20 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
You're asserting exactly the thing that the OP is skeptical about. If the universe was non-relativistic and the speed of light was infinite, would it still be possible to hit a golf ball and have it sail into the air? We're not talking about the knowledge of relativity, but rather the (imagined) reality. Relativity explains why causes always precede their consequences; if relativity is wrong and speed of light infinite, do we still have that guarantee or not?
$endgroup$
– Luaan
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
You're asserting exactly the thing that the OP is skeptical about. If the universe was non-relativistic and the speed of light was infinite, would it still be possible to hit a golf ball and have it sail into the air? We're not talking about the knowledge of relativity, but rather the (imagined) reality. Relativity explains why causes always precede their consequences; if relativity is wrong and speed of light infinite, do we still have that guarantee or not?
$endgroup$
– Luaan
14 hours ago
5
5
$begingroup$
That "everyone observed cause and effect [...] before Einstein came up with Relativity" does not mean that the universe was non-relativistic before Einstein, does it? So the statement is completely irrelevant, isn't it?
$endgroup$
– Peter A. Schneider
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
That "everyone observed cause and effect [...] before Einstein came up with Relativity" does not mean that the universe was non-relativistic before Einstein, does it? So the statement is completely irrelevant, isn't it?
$endgroup$
– Peter A. Schneider
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
If $c rightarrow infty$, how could there be any particle/field interaction? If there's no interaction at all, how could we punch someone on the face or hit a golf ball?
$endgroup$
– Cham
28 mins ago
$begingroup$
If $c rightarrow infty$, how could there be any particle/field interaction? If there's no interaction at all, how could we punch someone on the face or hit a golf ball?
$endgroup$
– Cham
28 mins ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f467768%2fare-cause-and-effect-the-same-as-in-our-universe-in-a-non-relativistic-newtonia%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
$begingroup$
Would cause and effect still exist in this Universe? This seems like a non sequitur. Could you edit the question to explain why you think there is any logical connection between this and the preceding material?
$endgroup$
– Ben Crowell
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
Can we even really apply our physics to "infinite speed light"? I thought even classical approaches to optics still considered that light moved with a non-infinite speed; they just didn't relate that to the speed of light being the limit of velocity, and assumed light speed was limited by its medium.
$endgroup$
– JMac
11 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Given that you're starting off with discarding the laws of physics - and then making assertions the result (eg speed of light infinate) - might I suggest that the world builder forum be a better place to ask?
$endgroup$
– UKMonkey
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
Of course you might!
$endgroup$
– descheleschilder
10 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@industry7 ok, but what is FTL when c = infinity?
$endgroup$
– Carl Witthoft
8 hours ago